In this case, Labrador Diagnostics LLC (Claimant) initiated an infringement action against bioMérieux SA and its subsidiaries (Defendants) concerning European patent 3 756 767 B1, which relates to an instrument and method for detecting a biological analyte. The patent had been amended in a bifurcated proceeding by the Milan Central Division, maintaining only two claims focusing on an instrument and a method. The case also involves a counterclaim for revocation.
UPC Publication Date:01/28/2026
Summarized:01/29/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Parties:Labrador Diagnostics LLC v. v. v. bioMérieux SA. a. o.
Winning Party:bioMérieux SA
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:3 756 767 B1
Patent Title:Instrument and Method for Detecting a Biological Analyte
Grounds for decision:BifurcationAmended ClaimsInfringement
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) decided on a request for confidentiality regarding confidential information related to a patent dispute involving 4G+ technologies. The decision addressed the need to protect confidential information while ensuring fair trial rights and remedies. The Court allowed a limited number of Vivo's employees access to highly confidential information, with conditions to prevent misuse in licensing negotiations. The decision highlighted that employees should not be excluded from access solely due to their employment status, as this would limit a party's ability to prepare effectively for trial. The Court denied the full request for an 'External Eyes Only' regime but required measures to prevent unauthorized use. Penalties may be imposed on parties for breaches, reinforcing responsibilities under the UPC Agreement and Rules of Procedure.
UPC Publication Date:01/26/2026
Summarized:01/29/2026
Type:Appeal RoP220.2
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Sun Patent Trust v. v. v. Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL and APPLE Inc. (intervener)
Winning Party:Not explicitly stated
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 852 468, EP 3 407 524
Patent Title:Not specified in the document
Grounds for decision:Right to a fair trialBalance of interestsRole and trustworthiness of employees
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding a confidentiality request related to patent litigation between Sun Patent Trust and Vivo. The court emphasized the need to balance effective remedy rights and fair trial against confidentiality protection. Sun Patent Trust sought to limit access to confidential information to Vivo's legal team and external experts, excluding Vivo's employees. However, the court decided that excluding employees would hinder fair representation of the parties, thereby allowing limited employee access to confidential information, especially when the information pertains to a license agreement. Remedies for confidentiality breaches were clarified, focusing on party liability over individual legal representatives.
UPC Publication Date:01/26/2026
Summarized:01/29/2026
Type:Appeal RoP220.2
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v. v. v. Sun Patent Trust
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 852 468
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Balance between confidentiality and fair trialEffective remedy rights
On 26 January 2026, the President of the Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal issued a decision regarding a petition for review of a Registrar's decision. The applicant sought to be listed as a representative before the UPC, citing a certificate from a course completed in 1989. The Registrar rejected the application because it was filed after the one-year transition period allowed by Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules, which ended on 3 June 2024. The petitioner argued that the time limit was discriminatory and inconsistent across signatory states.
UPC Publication Date:01/26/2026
Summarized:01/29/2026
Type:Petition for review of Registrar's decision
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Applicant ***
Winning Party:Registrar
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:N/A
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Rule 12.1 time limitQualifications requirement under Art. 48(2) UPCA
This legal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses an application concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. The court emphasizes balancing the need for confidentiality with ensuring the right to a fair trial. Ericsson sought an 'External Eyes Only' (EEO) regime to protect certain license agreements, which was opposed by ASUS and rejected by the lower court, leading to this appeal.
UPC Publication Date:01/26/2026
Summarized:01/29/2026
Type:Appeal RoP220.2
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. v. v. ASUSTEK Computer inc., Arvato Netherlands B. V. and APPLE Inc. (intervener)
Winning Party:ASUS
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 2 727 342, EP 3 076 673
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Protection of confidential informationRight to fair trialProportionality of confidentiality measures
In this appellate decision by the Unified Patent Court, the court addressed the protection of confidential information within a case involving Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Ericsson) and ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (ASUS). Ericsson appealed a decision that rejected its proposal for an "external eyes only" (EEO) confidentiality regime regarding confidentiality of documents, arguing that certain license agreements should require stricter confidentiality measures.
UPC Publication Date:01/26/2026
Summarized:01/29/2026
Type:Appeal RoP220.2
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. v. v. ASUSTEK Computer inc., Arvato Netherlands B. V. and APPLE Inc. (intervener)
Winning Party:ASUSTeK Computer Inc.
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 2 727 342, EP 3 076 673
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Right to a fair trialProportionalityProtection of legitimate interestsPotential harm to third parties
In the case UPC_CFI_999/2025, ALD France S.A.S (the claimant) filed a nullity action against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 083 107 B1. The dispute primarily involves the independence of ALD France S.A.S, despite its connections to the parent company, ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH. Nanoval argued the action was an abuse of process, alleging ALD France acted as a 'strawman' for its parent. The court needed to decide on jurisdiction and whether the procedural tactics were permissible. ALD France defended its independent operation and legal standing to maintain the suit, despite arguments of overlapping interests in related cases handled by ALD Vacuum.
UPC Publication Date:01/26/2026
Summarized:01/29/2026
Type:Revocation Action
Court:Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
Parties:ALD France S.A.S v. v. v. Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
Winning Party:ALD France S.A.S
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 083 107 B1
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Independence of plaintiff’s business operationsImproper application of party identity rulesJurisdictional basis for action
RemediesDismissal of the objection against invalidity claimContinuation of invalidity proceedings before central division
Merz Pharmaceuticals sought provisional measures against Viatris Santé, alleging patent infringement. However, the initial application was rejected, with Merz ordered to pay interim costs. On appeal, Merz requested new evidence (Exhibit 823) be kept confidential, filing under RoP 262.2. However, the court clarified that confidentiality under RoP 262A must be requested explicitly for restrictions on opposing party’s use of info. Without proper application, documents are made accessible to other parties. Thus, Merz's confidentiality request was not immediately granted and the court ordered the exhibit's access status be changed to allow Viatris Santé access.
UPC Publication Date:01/26/2026
Summarized:01/29/2026
Type:Application RoP262-2
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v. v. v. Viatris Santé
Guardant Health, a company specializing in liquid biopsy tests for detecting genetic mutations, filed for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics for alleged infringement of its European patents. The patents in question relate to methods for processing genetic material, which Guardant claims are used in Sophia Genetics' MSK-ACCESS® powered with SOPHiA DDM tests.
UPC Publication Date:01/23/2026
Summarized:01/26/2026
Type:Application for provisional measures
Court:Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
Parties:Guardant Health, Inc. v. v. v. Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Winning Party:Sophia Genetics
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3470533, EP 3591073, EP 3443066, EP 3766986
Patent Title:Liquid Biopsy for Diagnostic Purposes
Grounds for decision:Added matterBurden of proofUnreasonable delay
Valeo Systemes d’Essuyage initiated an infringement action against multiple Bosch entities concerning EP 2671766 in the Unified Patent Court (UPC), at the Paris division. Bosch challenged the Paris division's jurisdiction and the language of the proceedings. The initial court upheld Bosch's preliminary objection, redirecting the case to the Düsseldorf division, with proceedings in English. Valeo appealed, seeking to establish Paris's competence and proceedings in French. The Court of Appeal reviewed the admissibility of Valeo's appeal and invited Bosch to comment on this matter before proceeding. Meanwhile, the deadlines for Bosch's defense were suspended.
UPC Publication Date:01/21/2026
Summarized:01/26/2026
Type:Appeal RoP220.2
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v. v. v. ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 2671766
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:JurisdictionProcedure language
The Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning the confidentiality of license negotiations between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and HMD Global Oy, related to European Patent EP 3 667 981. The order, established under Rule 262A RoP, mandates that all confidential details of FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) negotiations between the parties are protected. It creates a confidentiality regime that extends to future submissions, aiming to avoid repetitive confidentiality determinations for similar information. The protection is justified given the sensitive nature of the information, including potential third-party license agreements. Both parties have coordinated out-of-court and agreed with the confidentiality approach, permitting objections within one week for unjustified confidentiality markings. The order restricts access to unredacted documents, ensuring confidentiality is maintained strictly within the proceedings.
UPC Publication Date:01/19/2026
Summarized:01/20/2026
Type:Application RoP262A
Court:Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Parties:Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. v. v. HMD Global Oy
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 667 981
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Confidentiality of FRAND negotiationsRule 262A RoP
IMC Créations, a French company specializing in anti-theft systems for vehicles, initiated a lawsuit against Mul-T-Lock France for infringing its unitary European patent EP4153830 related to high-security vehicle locks. IMC attempted to prove that Mul-T-Lock's MVP 1000 lock infringed claims 1, 2, and 7 of the patent. Subsequently, IMC sought to amend the patent claims to address Mul-T-Lock's counterclaims, which included a demand for nullity and a denial of infringement. The tribunal rejected various preliminary objections, with IMC revising their claims to focus on modifications in jurisdictions where the patent had unitary effect. Ultimately, the court sided with IMC Créations, highlighting the protective coverage of their patent claims 1 and 6, albeit after modification, in certain jurisdictions.
UPC Publication Date:01/16/2026
Summarized:01/20/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:Paris (FR) Local Division
Parties:IMC Créations v. v. v. Mul-T-Lock France
Winning Party:IMC Créations
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP4153830
Patent Title:Security Systems for Vehicles
Grounds for decision:Patent InfringementNullity of Patent ClaimsTerritorial JurisdictionAmendment of Patent Claims
The Unified Patent Court of Appeal issued an order on January 16, 2026, dismissing the Applicant's request for suspensive effect against The Hague Local Division's decision. Amycel LLC had previously succeeded in obtaining provisional measures and an interim award of damages (€50,000) for the infringement of patent EP 1 993 350. The Applicant argued parts of the decision were irreversible, such as sending registered letters and website publication, and that paying interim damages would have serious business consequences. However, the Court found no exceptional circumstances justifying a suspension of the decision, and the application for suspensive effect was rejected.
In the infringement case UPC-CFI-1048/2025, BTL Medizintechnik GmbH initiated proceedings against Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L. However, BTL Medizintechnik GmbH requested the withdrawal of their infringement action after reaching a settlement with the defendant. Both parties agreed to withdraw the case, and the court confirmed the closure of the proceedings without requiring a cost decision. The court allowed the withdrawal according to Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure and ordered the case to be closed and registered as such.
UPC Publication Date:01/16/2026
Summarized:01/26/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:The Hague (NL) Local Division
Parties:BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v. v. v. Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP4146335
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Settlement between partiesConsent to withdrawal
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court delivered a decision on January 15, 2026, concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1, dealing with infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. The case involved the parties Ona Patents SL and Ekahau Oy as claimants/counterdefendants, and Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited as defendants/counterclaimants. The decision highlighted that a patent's registration is prioritized over entitlement for the sake of legal certainty. Furthermore, it addressed direct and indirect infringement, noting that products must exhibit every claimed component to constitute direct infringement, whereas partial feature infringement pertains to indirect infringement. The Claimant eventually was registered as the patent proprietor.
UPC Publication Date:01/15/2026
Summarized:01/20/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Parties:Ona Patents SL v. v. v. Google Ireland Limited a.o.
Winning Party:Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 2 263 098 B1
Patent Title:A method for determining a location estimate
Grounds for decision:Patent Registration Over EntitlementDirect and Indirect Infringement
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a procedural decision involving Establishment Labs S.A. and the GC Aesthetics group over the infringement of patent EP 3 107 487 B1. Establishment Labs claims the infringement by GC Aesthetics in multiple countries, including Belgium, Spain, and others, and sought an injunction. GC Aesthetics challenged the UPC's jurisdiction in countries like Ireland, Spain, and the UK, where the patent is also validated. They argued that the jurisdiction cannot extend beyond UPCA contracting states, especially for activities by ROMED, domiciled in Belgium. Consequently, the court upheld the preliminary objection, dismissing the claims related to non-UPC countries and ordering Establishment Labs to pay costs.
UPC Publication Date:01/15/2026
Summarized:01/20/2026
Type:Preliminary objection
Court:Brussels (BE) Local Division
Parties:(1) GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED v. (2) NAGOR LIMITED v. (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED v. (4) GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED v. (5) GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS v. (6) EUROSILICONE SAS v. (7) GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L. v. (8) GC AESTHETICS GmbH v. (9) GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U. v. (10) GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED v. (11) GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED v. (12) GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED v. (13) ROMED N.V. v. v. v. ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A. v.
In this procedural order from the Unified Patent Court, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited filed a revocation action against Flexicare regarding European Patent EP4185356. Flexicare attempted to amend the patent with new auxiliary requests to address clarity issues raised by Fisher & Paykel. However, these auxiliary requests were introduced late in the proceedings. The Unified Patent Court ruled that while Flexicare's application to introduce these later amendments was admissible, it was not allowable. The court emphasized that amendments should generally be introduced at the outset unless exceptional circumstances justify a late submission.
UPC Publication Date:01/15/2026
Summarized:01/20/2026
Type:Revocation Action
Court:Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
Parties:Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v. v. v. Flexicare (Group) Limited
Winning Party:Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP4185356
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Rule 49.2(a) RoPArt. 84 EPCArt. 123.2, .3 EPCRule 50.2 RoPRule 30.2 RoPPrinciple of parity of arms
In this case, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited (the claimant) filed a revocation action against Flexicare (Group) Limited (the defendant) concerning European Patent no. 4185356. The defendant proposed several amendments and auxiliary requests to address objections raised by the claimant, including features connecting a gas tube to a manifold. However, these auxiliary requests were submitted late in the process.
UPC Publication Date:01/15/2026
Summarized:01/20/2026
Type:Revocation Action
Court:Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
Parties:Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v. v. v. Flexicare (Group) Limited
Winning Party:Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:4185356
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Admissibility of late amendmentsCompliance with procedural rulesFairness and equityParity of arms
This legal decision concerns a patent dispute where ZTE accused several entities of Samsung Electronics of infringing on European Patent EP 3 905 730. Samsung requested the court to allow the introduction of a third-party license agreement as evidence, arguing that ZTE's claims regarding the FRAND conformity of their offer were introduced late and needed rebuttal. Samsung also sought confidentiality for this agreement. ZTE opposed, claiming Samsung's request was a delay tactic. The judge ruled to postpone a decision on whether ZTE's evidence was belated and rejected Samsung’s request to extend written procedures. Samsung was provisionally allowed to respond to ZTE's submissions, but only related to specific arguments. Full confidentiality decisions were deferred. The case illustrates procedural tactics in patent litigation, confidentiality concerns, and FRAND terms negotiation.
UPC Publication Date:01/13/2026
Summarized:01/14/2026
Type:Application RoP262A
Court:Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Parties:ZTE Corporation v. v. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al.
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 905 730
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:FRAND obligationsProduction and confidentiality of evidence
The Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) dealt with an incident where one party missed the deadline to initiate a cost determination procedure following a decision involving infringement and nullity actions regarding the European Patent No. 3 215 288. The court decided that the plaintiff's application for reinstatement was admissible and warranted. The failure to meet the deadline for requesting cost determination could only be rectified by reinstatement of the previous status, as per Rule 320 of the Rules of Procedure (ROP). The decision emphasizes the importance of knowing procedural rules and highlights that ignorance of law usually doesn't suffice for reinstatement. However, in this specific case, the mistake attributed to the legal representative was not charged against the represented party, allowing for reinstatement.
UPC Publication Date:01/13/2026
Summarized:01/29/2026
Type:Application For Costs
Court:Munich (DE) Local Division
Parties:Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v. v. v. Vibrantz GmbH
Winning Party:Vibrantz GmbH
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:3 215 288
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Failure to adhere to Rule 151 deadlinesIgnorance of law by legal representativeRule 320 ROP - Reinstatement of previous status